On 1 July, Jori Kalkman joined Wageningen University & Research as an Associate Professor in the Sociology of Development and Change group. A WUR alumnus, he is glad to return in this new role. Jori's research focuses on disaster response. Drawing on his experience at the Netherlands Defence Academy, where he also holds a position as Associate Professor, he brings a unique perspective on the interplay between formal emergency operations and local community resilience.
I completed my Master's here at International Development with a specialization in Disaster Studies. Ever since, I've been interested in how communities and organizations respond to disasters. This is also part of my work at the Netherlands Defence Academy, where I focus on how the armed forces can support disaster relief operations and missions.
I'm particularly interested in how we make sure that, when incidents happen - and they are increasingly likely to happen due to climate change, for instance - we respond to them effectively and responsibly.
That means studying disaster response operations by government organizations, emergency services, as well as by communities themselves. I wanted to join WUR because the Sociology of Development and Change group, which I'm joining, has a lot of expertise in how communities respond to disasters themselves. And how formal organizations can collaborate in these responses and support them to help communities recover or become more resilient.
The special expertise on community dynamics in the face of disasters is unique here, and I think there's much to learn from that. It's something we should develop further to inform policymakers and organizations on how to interact with these communities more effectively.
What will your daily responsibilities and tasks involve at the Sociology of Development and Change group?
My appointment at the Sociology of Development and Change group will mostly revolve around research on disaster response. I will also be giving guest lectures and occasionally supervising thesis students. Finally, I will contribute to the Wageningen Disaster Network, a research cluster dedicated to scientific research on disasters, which brings together WUR researchers from various disciplines to exchange knowledge and research findings. The interdisciplinary nature of the network helps us to better understand the origins of disasters and adequate responses to disaster events.
How has your background with the Netherlands Defence Academy shaped your perspective on disaster response research?
I joined the Netherlands Defence Academy after I completed my master's here. It has a Faculty of Military Sciences, which is kind of a "mini-university" with scientific independence and about 150 scientific staff.
My focus has always been on how the armed forces respond to crises and disasters. So, I've studied how established organizations such as the armed forces, but also emergency services, respond to disasters and what dilemmas they face.
So, for instance, a soldier deployed to a hurricane-stricken country usually arrives in an area with massive destruction. They're supposed to follow pre-established plans, but often those plans are outdated or just don't fit the reality on the ground, so they need to adapt on the spot. And I've been researching how these organizations can become more adaptive, more resilient. And also how to make sure that the actions carried out match the needs of the people who are affected.
Have you ever taken part in a disaster response?
I have witnessed some but never directly taken part, and that's a known challenge in disaster research. You rarely see disasters coming, and by the time you arrive, the immediate response phase is over. It's not always ethical or helpful to show up in the middle of an emergency just to observe either. That's why we often rely on interviews, documentation, and analyses.
Floods are among the few disasters you can often see coming. But that also raises ethical questions. If emergency services are evacuating people - do I really want to be there as a researcher, or would that distract people and make them respond differently to the crisis?
Still, in areas where floods happen often, communities become more self-reliant. That contrasts with the Netherlands, where emergency services are quick to respond. The downside is that people here might not be prepared to act on their own if help is delayed. And the other way around - emergency services often find it hard to include citizen initiatives, because they are used to being in control. So, coordination with spontaneous volunteer groups isn't always easy. But I think this will become increasingly necessary, with disasters potentially becoming larger and more destructive.
What tips would you give to your colleagues or the public? What should we start or stop doing to better prepare for disasters?
The government's current focus is on individual preparation - buying an emergency kit to make sure you can survive for 72 hours without help. That's fine, but disaster research shows that the critical variable isn't individual readiness, it's whether you live in a community with strong social ties.
So, the most useful thing you can do is build a solid social network. Know your neighbours. Look out for each other. If your friends and family are far away, they may not be able to help you during a disaster. Your neighbours will.
The next step is organizing a community meeting and discussing what the specific risks in your area are - forest fires, floods? Who are the vulnerable people in your neighborhood, and who's going to help them if disaster strikes?
We need to resist the tendency to focus only on ourselves. That's the risk of an individualistic society. Even if you strongly disagree with your neighbour's political views, if disaster strikes, you will need each other. And preferably, you should figure that out before a disaster hits.
There's also a danger in focusing too much on "save yourself first." That logic tends to leave behind people who can't save themselves. Often, the people making decisions about disaster response take themselves as the norm, and any vulnerable groups don't feel represented. That's where disaster injustice comes in.
"The most useful thing you can do is build a solid social network. Know your neighbours. Look out for each other."
Can you give an example of disaster injustice?
Take humanitarian aid packages, for example. They have often been handed out to the (male) "head of household". They have also been designed with the "average" man in mind. So women, especially single women, may not receive appropriate support. There's often a lack of menstrual hygiene products, or no special consideration for pregnant women.
Another example, after disasters, household violence often increases, usually affecting women. But disaster response operations rarely address that.
So even if the intentions are good, the results can be unjust. We need more inclusive decision-making to avoid that.
How can your research contribute to making disaster aid more inclusive?
Step one is identifying the effects of current disaster responses. And strangely, we have very limited data on that. We know that women and poorer households suffer more, but we rarely collect data during or after the response to understand why.
So, during my time here in Wageningen, I want to explore alternatives to the current disaster response model. Instead of just "restoring normality," maybe we can move towards a better, more fair, and just normal.
You've mentioned political ecology and feminist ethics in your research plan. How do these approaches help rethink disaster response?
Disasters are often seen as natural events, something that simply happens. But many disaster researchers argue that disasters are actually social events. The same flood can have very different effects in different communities, depending on their social structure.
Political ecology helps us look at those structures and understand why some people are more vulnerable. Maybe they're marginalized or forced to live in flood-prone areas. Often, it's political decisions that made them vulnerable in the first place.
Feminist ethics adds a different lens. Instead of focusing on control and getting things "back to normal" as fast as possible, it focuses on care. Care for affected people, for interpersonal relationships, and for helping people regain control over their lives.
"Instead of rushing to restore normality, we should ask: whose normal are we restoring-and is it just?"
For example, after the floods in Limburg, many people couldn't return to their homes for years. The response was focused on controlling the situation quickly, but not necessarily on helping people long-term. The feminist approach would say: we need to keep caring, even after the crisis phase is "over."
How can we apply feminist or inclusive thinking when most responders and decision-makers are still men?
That's an important challenge. If the emergency operation centre has no women or marginalized voices, the decisions won't be inclusive, even if women are active in the operations.
That doesn't mean that a 50/50 split is necessary. But the culture change in these organizations is necessary. Right now, they often have very masculine norms.
Even when women perform well, they are often expected to act like "one of the guys," and any mistakes they make get framed as proof that women can't do the job.
So, to really include women and marginalized voices, you need more than recruitment. You need a culture change. Only then can disaster response become truly just and inclusive.
